I took a few with my Canon 20D and find the angel of the subject to the sun makes a big difference in the way the photo turns out, i.e. looking straight up into the sun, like this shot, I wanted to give it a dusk feel but as you can see by the sun it was full daylight (about 11.00AM) Also I feel that the surface conditions also make a difference, this was a day without a ripple, we don't get to many like this (except when Alex is here )

The this was a day or so later and the surface was not so flat and the angel was far more to the side, a little to hot around the diver:

And lastly another flat day, but this time finding the sun around the boat, gives it a strange un-earthly feel.

Hello Kriptap, well i do like the last shot with the boat silhouette, great sunrays, the other 4 are good examples of what i don't like about dig sunbursts.

20ceans: mmmm Provia, yummy, i will post one of my manta silhouettes from a couple of months ago shot with Provia...
However, looking at Kriptaps boat silhouette it looks like it could be done pretty well on his 20D

Thought i would add some photos i took yesterday, just some test shots from a safety stop. Doesn't really add much to the discussion but ah well. All taken straight up from 15ft (5m) at around 1pm, as you can see tis slightly choppy

What would be nice is if i had an E6 machine and could post the same ones from a film camera taken at same time same conditions. If anyone has access to both perhaps they could do so?

I quite like the last one Mike (1000/f11) with the smaller cyan fringe. Sure, the water is getting darker towards the corners, but there is still detail there and you've even got the hint of some rays.

Hey Anthony, yep tis amazing how the same EVs can have different affects.

When shooting at the blue higher fstops will always give progressively darker edges to the photos, due to the smaller aperture opening.

WHat i don't like is that to get a sun that is not disagreeable in a photo where it is not obscured somewhat by the subject, the aperture has to be so small that it darkens the edges too much and you lose overall exposure of an image. Like the f22/250 you mention. It has a nice blue just a bad centre of the burst. WOuld be good if somewhat obscured by suject.

True, this is the same as film, but...on film you don't need to use such high shutters and high fstops to gain the same agreeable sunburst, therefore you get more detail and light on the edges of the photo and a much nicer blue.

With lots of messing around i am finally getting better sunbursts with the digital but thats the problem in my opinion, things have to be just right or it won't work out properly. True, it also doesn't always work with film either, its just you get a higher percentage of keepers from film than dig...
Ah well, makes for good discussion topics!

One of the great things about a digital file is the retreivable data hidden in the shadows. I shoot the sun and sunbursts with high shutter speeds to expose that area correctly and if I fail to light the shadows sufficiently then the info can be brought out in the shadows/highlights tool in Photoshop CS.

In theory your idea would work. However, and this may be entirely due to my PS skills, but whenever i have tried to use the Shadow/High.. tool it has created a huge amount of "noise" in my photos that is just not acceptable for what i use my photos for.
I have to create 18x12 inch 300dpi 56mb files for an agency and at that size reducing noise is hugely important to the quality of the photo.

Again, as i said it may be me but i have not had good luck with that tool

Of course, it's always best to avoid problems in camera. BUT, I've had fairly good results from Nikon Caputure with NEF files, using the D-Lighting and vignetting tools -- not perfect, but they seem better than what I get in PhotoShop.

I Finally got around to doing some proper post processing of my pictures from march....I came across this sunball. I think this is my best sunball so far. The backscatter is horid, but I think the sunball is quite nice.

Ok, Mr Heaton this one is for you. Thought i would add the appropriate subject for you....

As you can see, the obscuring of the sun makes in my mind at least a very nice photo with readily frozen rays. The unobscured sun, again rays are frozen and i was able to balance the exposure due to it being a CFWA. But i think the sun still a little overpowering but not too bad. I still don't think this will work very well with larger creatures that you can't get close enough to to light up properly with an f8 or f11. But that is ok, i have just decided its time for a compositional change of style anyways....
Depth is about 20 feet. Shot with D70, ISO 200, YS120s diffused on full power

I have no trouble with sunbursts but hey Thats one of the advantages of FILM. Believe it or not there are some others as well. Mark

2 Subal procase 5- Housings2 Aquatica f/3 housingsNikon film f/5's and f/3's camerasWay to many strobes to listAll that Nikonos junkand now a subal d300 setupStill a film divasourus with a baby toe in digital world